Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:32:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:l4gbb19gq4jg7rvp9uk4bi458jrfsb0vua@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:54:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:fhvab11tui0d443qm3p2lbnmqvelqbasae@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:10:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:8dd8b1dt8rrcade7ph486esrjivbrq29ih@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:29:28 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:08:02 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>OK, I have it now. There are some obvious problems
>>>>>>>>>without getting into the detail yet. The first you
>>>>>>>>>point out yourself: the effect of a large distant
>>>>>>>>>mass would apply to all the bodies in the solar
>>>>>>>>>system hence we would not detect anything. In fact
>>>>>>>>>this is currently happening both because the Milky
>>>>>>>>>Way galaxy is bound in the Local Group. You might
>>>>>>>>>also find it interesting to look up the "Great
>>>>>>>>>Attractor":
>>>> Any point in our universe of particles is located at x y z cT. There
>>>> is image in Dual Space of antiparticles located at x y z 0. (Espace
>>>> is the dual to our vaccum). The range I used for the Newton
>>>> acceleration is R = cT. It is not a distance xyz w/re to the Sun e.g.
>>>
>>>That comment seems entirely unrelated to what
>>>you quote above.
>> Some perspective. Forget the xyzicT of Einstein.

I think we can start here. If you think I've got some jackleg way of
doing relativity you have it all wrong. I am declaring relativity
bankrupt. The Schw. metric and time dilation are kluges to make the
thing go. The equations of space should have nothing to do with xyz at
all, just the velocities.
I mis-spoke when I said all relativity is in Fig. 1. It might sound
like it's my way of doing relaitivy. I mean my method delivers
relativity's results entirely but by a method derived independently of
relativity.

In Fig. 1 all the 2nd order defects separating relativity from Newton
are contained in the 4th side of the figure. That should be plain from
the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity
is relative velocity, and for GTR the velocity is escape velocity, so
both modus' are explained by a single figure.

Relativity's Eq. 6 & 7 are quite obscure and rely on the idea of
clock slowing due to time dilation. Time is absolute. c varies.

Fig. 1 and 2 are velocity diagrams. Observe that these are
4-dimensional diagrams in that any real velocity can be collapsed into
a single vector and the horizontal is our velocity through time, 4th
dimension.

>x, y, z and t are all you can measure. Whatever your
>theory, you have to relate them back to those values.
>
>You are still not saying anything relevant to the
>comment above. Your suggestion of a remote black
>hole or other large mass cannot explain A_p for
>the reason you correctly stated yourself.
Quick summary of Ap:
The satellite is feeling a faint acceleration 8.4e-10m/ss = Ap from a
universe that is the twin of ouruniverse located 11 BLyr from here on
the time axis. (Time axis). It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar
masses in the other space. But mx would have a horizon radius of
22BLY, so we would be in a black hole. Cut mx in two so it is then the
antiparticle half or Espace, corresponding to our Uspace half. Now we
get Ap/2. Now invoke the new term cdc/dr = mG/r^2 Eq, 1 #2, and
recover another contributor to Ap making a total of Ap. That's how P10
feels Ap.


><snip stuff>
>> There's no use trying to encapsulate a whole new theory in a half
>> dozen paragraphs.
>
>Then stop trying to do so and respond to the
>objection I raised instead.

I will admit that planetary orbits should be likewise affected, but I
won't abandon the theory for that reason. It is why I suggested that
another Pioneer experiment should be sure to determine range also by
round trip time, and not rely solely on increase in Doppler frequency
over time.

>>>>> All of relativity is in Fig. 1
>>>> paper#2
>>>
>>>You have used normal trig instead of hyperbolic
>>>so the craft clock appears to run fast instead
>>>of slow but it is analogous,
>>
>> In DS time-arrow diagram Fig.1 #2,
>
>Above you said fig 1 was relativity, not DS. That
>conflict is what I asked you to clarify.

To repeat:
I mis-spoke when I said all relativity is in Fig. 1. It might sound
like it's my way of doing relaitivy. I mean my method delivers
relativity's results entirely but by a method derived independently of
relativity.

>> the horizontal line is along the
>> 4th dimension time axis and every xyz velocity in Uspace is drawn
>> normal to the time line.
>
>Since velocity is the rate of change of the spatial
>vlalues, those should be distances, not velocities
>or the slope of the line becomes acceleration.

By now you should see that the x axis is our velocity c or cx as we
move through the 4th dimension. V is any velocity you care to name
with respect to our frame.

>> Our velocity is at c on the 4th dimension
>> ever since our launching at creation.
>>
>> DS does not use time dilation. It's all reduction in c. Look again at
>> Fig. 1b. The relative velocity V of the craft causes its time arrow to
>> be rotated by angle a. The craft's time arrow remains the same length
>> because it's totally equivalent, just a different direction in
>> space-time:
>
>Relativity also rotates the arrow and keeps it the
>same length.

Relativity doesn't have an arrow. Its corpus is an xyzt coordinate
system whose legs are subject to bending via the Schw. metric. Time is
welded onto xyz and nothing moves. That's how it differs from Dual
Space.
>
>> Craft's clock on the hypotenuse will read slow in our frame being
>> reduced by cosine a or Lorentz.
>> Similarly for force F in 1b, which is intended to push the craft,
>> has a diminishing effect Feff = F cosine a, just like Lorentz. This
>> differs with relativity by avoiding the use of the odious gamma to
>> "jack up" m so as to resist the force. This avoids all the
>> relativistic mass debates.
>
>"Relativistic mass" was a poor attempt to shoehorn
>relativity into Newtonian equations that causes a
>lot of misunderstanding. Mass is really invariant
>in relativity.

No you have gamma mc2 and no matter how it is argued, relativity has a
permanent embarassment that perennially needs exculpation.

>> The little 4th side delta c in Fig. 1c divided by c is z, the
>> redshift.
>>
>>>I know what you
>>>mean. I guess you did the same later too.
>> No, I did not waver. This same diagram solves general relativity
>> problems too. We need a velocity V to represent strength of gravity
>> and it is naturally the terminal velocity or escape velocity from
>> infinity to that point.
>> Again,cx/c is the actual slowdown ratio of a clock in the gravity
>> well, and we can just as well use the 4th side, delta c/c to compute
>> any deficits. delta c = 0.5(V/c)^2
>>
>> This is not just geometry. No, a mass at infinity gets "free energy"
>> by accumulating velocity of 11,180m/s at earth. But this energy comes
>> from a decrement in c of 0.208m/s.
>>
>> The immediate application is seen in the 4 corrections in the GPS
>> system.
>> This is clearly and numerically illustrated in Fig. 2 and Cols. 3 & 4
>> in table 1 in #2 paper. Each clock correction comes off as dc/c x
>> 86,400 sec/day. The results are plain and clear, contrasted with the
>> relativity version in Eq. 6 & 7.
>>
>>>
>>>> with total energy never deviating from 1/2mc^2.
>>>> A hyperbolic 4space is an abomination as you can see from Fig. 4 #2,
>>>
>>>The energy seems to be in fig 3 in document 2,
>>>not fig 4. Even then it is not a style I've
>>>seen before. Where did you get the diagram?
>>
>> Yes fig.3. The diagram is a natural embodiment of relativitys total
>> energy equation 10, TE being the sum of the squares of (already
>> quadratic) terms. As you can see, in Fig. 3b, we have cx on the
>> horizontal and real V normal to it. DS uses that same philosophy,
>> except that in ours, horizontal c is our speed thru the Espace and in
>> relativity its undefined I guess.
>
>In relativity, we plot the mometum on the
>horizontal and energy on the vertical as shown
>below. Mass is the hypotenuse and the length is
>unchanged by rotation though it looks as though
>it changes because the Euclidean geometry of
>our monitors.
>
>>>This is a simple version I did some time ago
>>>but it needs more annotation:
>>>
>>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/relativity/momenergy.gif

Call me a puritan but I was revulsed at your diagram above. Firstly
you are taking the vector sum of momentum p and energy mc2. The units
are incompatible. Worse, the hypotenuse is labeled mass and as we know
mass is simply a scalar that can transduce acceleration into force,
again different units. But then worse, your mass will go to infinity
with increase in momentum. Even if you meant pc on the x axis, the
diagram is of no tutorial value.

>>>The mass is an invariant scalar and as usual
>>>the rotation in spacetime known as velocity
>>>produces the increase we call kinetic energy.
>>>
>>>As for your figure 4, the one on the left is
>>>the relativistic version (if you used the
>>>hyperbolic trig as above) with 'v' being the
>>>velocity and alpha being the corresponding
>>>rapidity. The one on the right is Newtonian
>>>where R1 and R2 are the velocities. Alpha in
>>>that diagram has no equivalent in Newtonian
>>>theory. Did you get the labels the wrong way
>>>round?
>>
>> Not at all. Look again. The effect of a real velocity V is to rotate
>> the original time-arrow c as shown in fig. 4a so that after each
>> rotation its value remains c.
>
>That's also true of SR.

I have not seen such a diagram in SR. In SR c stretches into gamma c.
>
>> The right hand one is relativistic, c
>> becoming a larger gamma c.
>
>No, c is a fundamental constant that does not
>change in relativity and the axis rotates as
>you show in 4a except that it rotates the
>other way from what you have shown.
>
>>>> the relativity total energy with its abominable gamma mc^2, resulting
>>>> from hyperbolic 4space.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>>Then unless you have a way to turn that
>>>>>general result into a direction and show
>>>>>that it will be within 1.5 degrees of a
>>>>>line towards the Sun, you don't have an
>>>>>explanation, sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>> It's new physics, there's 12 chapters ahead of chapter 13, and you
>>>> seem to insist on my solving it with what we already know, and so far,
>>>> it can't be done.
>>>
>>>I'm not insisting on anything, you said you
>>>had done it without any prompting from me:
>>
>> There's far too much to cover in order to prove my P10 explanation. I
>> again got trapped into trying to teletype it all to you in a few
>> breathless paragraphs, but it's plainly not working.
>
>What is not working is that you keep trying
>to tell me how you worked out your theory
>instead of how you applied it to Pioneer.
>Look back at what you posted, there isn't
>a word about the spacecraft in it. Just
>stick to the point and you might get
>somewhere.
>
>> New physics you need, new physics you haven't got, new physics you
>> have to study.
>> You seem to have objected to enough stuff in paper #2 to merit a
>> re-reading based on my responses.
>
>Your responses show only some significant
>misapprehensions about relativity. You
>might try breaking out the textbooks, I have
>only given hints of where the errors lie so
>you'll need to work out the details yourself.

To repeat, I have used nothing from relativity except to show how I
get the same values.
You are probably a pretty quick study but there's no wa;y you will get
the whole idea without letting go fo SR/GR and study some new
concepts.

>George
>
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time Dilation, why is Inertial Frame always center of the Earth
    ... > East plane therefore his Time Dilation should be LESS instead of the ... System approach to Relativity, ... them) in the Earth's center of mass HIS. ... if a body increases its velocity its mass can increase, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Help a layman with a paradox
    ... > I'm moving away from increase in mass? ... Relativity, the topic that distinguishes this group. ... The Earth or the Sun? ... if a body increases its velocity its mass can increase, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... Relativity is a trap: look at the sort of papers being written in Phys ... Our velocity is at c on the 4th dimension ... This same diagram solves general relativity ... a mass at infinity gets "free energy" ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: ON THE CO-DEPENDENCE OF TIME DILATION, SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITIES, AND RELATIVISTIC MASS
    ... Time Dilation, Relativistic Mass, and c as a limit (Superluminal ... Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity. ... dont mix up that what is now everywhere and what you observe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory
    ... You've chosen to interpret his use of the word "mass" ... | so there is rarely a need to use E in special relativity. ... | then takes this and requires that mass be the source of gravity. ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading